(PC) Rojo v. Amador Jail

Opinion

LUIS ALBERTO MEZA ROJO, Case No. 2:22-cv-02137-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. On February 24, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that the claims were not cognizable. ECF No. 7. I granted him thirty days to file an amended complaint or advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a recommendation that it be dismissed. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to file an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to stand by his current complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to stand by his current complaint. ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ April 27, 2023 q_———. JEREMY D. PETERSON Db UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE